1.14.1 Attachment 3 Evaluation Factors Response Instructions & Procedures.pdf

Basis for Award, Evaluation Factors and Methodology

1. BASIS FOR AWARD

a. Best Value / Trade Off

In accordance with FAR 15.101-1 Trade off, awards will be made based on proposals that are determined to provide the best value as a whole to the Government with appropriate consideration given to the four (4) evaluation factors: Technical & Management Approach for

Storage and Maintenance, Technical & Management Approach for Operational Services, Past

Performance, and Price. In addition, this approach does not require FEMA to award to the

Offeror(s) submitting the lowest priced proposal or to the Offeror(s) submitting the highest technically rated proposals. It is the Government’s intension to award a single IDIQ contract.

b. Award Without Discussion

The Government reserves the right to award a contract based on initial offers received without communications or discussions. For this reason, each initial offer should be submitted on the most favorable terms from the standpoint of technical and price. However, in accordance with

FAR 15.306(d), FEMA also reserves the right to conduct communications and/or permit Offerors to revise their proposals if the Contracting Officer deems it appropriate and in the best interest of the Government. If discussions are conducted, the Contracting Officer will schedule the discussion session, and each offeror will be notified of the date and time.

c. Rejection of Non-responsive and Unrealistic Proposals

FEMA reserves the right to reject proposals that are not responsive to the requirements of the solicitation or unrealistic in the terms of proposed outcomes or proposed prices. Examples:

• A proposal consisting of general statements that the Offeror simply rephrases or restates requirements to work to be performed is not responsive to the solicitation requirements.

• A proposal that contains a large number of exceptions to the solicitation, or a proposal that contains one or more significant exception to the solicitation is not responsive to the solicitation requirements. An exception is significant if it materially alters the terms under which the Offeror will perform or requires FEMA to give up rights to which it would be entitled.

• A proposal that reflects prices lower than the likely cost of performance is unrealistic.

• Unbalanced pricing is a proposal that contains unrealistic low prices for some aspects of performance (i.e., labor categories and/or certain years) and overstating price compared to the likely cost of performance for other aspects of performance.

d. Right Not to Award

FEMA reserves the right to not award contracts in response to the solicitation if the Source

Selection Authority determines that this is in the best interest of the Government.

2. EVALUATION PROCESS

a. Initial Screening

Upon receipt of proposals, FEMA will examine proposals to ensure each proposal is complete and comply with the terms of the solicitation. Proposals that are incomplete (e.g., missing volumes, appendices, or required information) or do not comply with the terms of the solicitation

(exceed page limit, include price information in the technical proposal) will not be evaluated. In addition, Offerors are required to submit three (3) contracts that demonstrate Relevant

Experience. Relevant Experience is rated on a Pass / Fail basis, which means all three contracts must demonstrate the same or similar size, scope, complexity, dollar value, type and prime contractor on the contract.

b. Source Selection Evaluation Board

A source selection evaluation board comprised of qualified personnel will evaluate all information furnished by Offerors. This includes proposals, written responses to clarification request (if needed) and/or revised proposals (if needed). However, technical proposals are evaluated separately from price proposals.

c. Communications with Offerors (if needed)

During the evaluation process, the Contracting Officer may conduct written or oral communications with any and/or all Offerors in accordance with FAR 15.306(b).

d. Exclusion from Competition

During the evaluation process, FEMA may limit continued participation in the competition to those Offerors most likely to receive award. If at any time during the evaluation process the

Government concludes that an Offeror is not likely to receive an award, the Government may eliminate the Offeror from further consideration. The Contracting Officer will provide written notification to any Offeror eliminated from award consideration.

3. EVALUATION FACTORS

This evaluation will evaluate each offerors’ proposal in accordance with the factor and criteria established in this SSP. The evaluation factors will measure the Government’s confidence that the offerors understand the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract.

The technical evaluation criteria to be evaluated consists of the following:

• Factor 1 – Technical & Management Approach to Storage and Maintenance

• Factor 2 – Technical & Management Approach to Operational Services

• Factor 3 – Past Performance

• Factor 4 – Price (not a technical Factor)

Factor Weight – Factors 1 & 2 are of equal importance and more important than Factor 3. When all technical factors are combined, they are more important than Factor 4. Offerors will be evaluated and rated using Confidence Ratings, earning a potential rating of High, Some, or Low

Confidence in each factor. Offerors who receive a rating of Low Confidence rating in any of the three technical factors will remove the offeror from further consideration for award.

3.1 Factor 1: Technical & Management Approach for Maintenance and Storage

The offeror must clearly demonstrate in the proposal their capability to meet the maintenance and storage requirements in the SOW. This shall include the ability to provide long-term storage for the units, maintenance for units, and remediation of any pest infestation of units while in storage in accordance with the SOW. The offeror must clearly demonstrate their technical approach to fabrication and attachment of collapsible walkways on each unit. Each offeror’s technical approach and management approach shall be evaluated to determine if the solutions proposed by the offeror meet the required specifications and other criteria as defined in the

SOW. Any intention and plan to utilize subcontractors or a teaming arrangement should be detailed.

3.2 Factor 2: Technical & Management Approach for Operational Services

The offeror must clearly demonstrate in the proposal their capability to meet the technical and management of operational service requirements in the PWS. This shall include the ability to provide the mobilization and transportation services to the pre-positioned location, wrap-around services, operational services, site-setup, and transportation of units to the operational site. Each offeror’s technical approach and management approach shall be evaluated to determine if the solutions proposed by the offeror meets the required specifications and other criteria as specified in the PWS. Any intention and plan to utilize subcontractors or a teaming arrangement should be detailed.

The Offeror should also address the following:

1. Its ability to meet the emergency response shuttling and transportation requirements as specified? Must be able to meet the following requirements:

a. Ensure the site locations are self-sufficient by providing the corresponding number of restrooms, showers, handwashing stations laundry facilities, HVAC, etc. in accordance with the SOW (wraparound services) within 18 hours.

b. Provide shuttling and transportation of units to and from sites in accordance with the deadlines in the SOW.

c. Provide power units and shuttle drivers to stay with trailers until final delivery is taken.

2. Its ability to provide the following services for each site: mobilization, site preparation, installation, management and operations, and demobilization.

3. Its ability to increase capacity at each site in accordance with the terms of the SOW;

4. Its ability to provide all services to all states and its territories in potential impact zones, including continental and outside of continental united states locations;

5. Its ability to deliver 300 beds to staging area within 48 hours after award;

6. Its ability to move the beds from the staging area to the camp site 18 hours after dispatched;

7. Its ability to perform repairs as needed;

8. Its ability to demobilize or relocate assets completely within 24 hours.

3.3 Factor 3: Past Performance

The Government will assess the Offeror’s capability to perform under the solicitation by evaluating the Offeror’s past performance on previous contracts similar in size, scope, complexity, and relevant to the requirements of this solicitation. Only past performance data on efforts of this type, completed within the last three years, or work that is ongoing, will be evaluated.

The offeror shall submit up to three (3) past performance self-write-ups accompanied with references which shall include contractual work that is similar to the requirements set forth in the

RFP. Only three references will be evaluated for each offeror. The Government may conduct evaluations by directly contacting the references.

Past performance listed may include those entered into by the Federal government, agencies of

State and local governments. If the contractor has no Federal, State or local government experience, commercial experience can be substituted, but must be identified. Contracts with the parent or an affiliate of the offeror may not be used.

The Government may also use past performance information obtained from sources other than those identified by the offeror. Information may be obtained from the Contractor Performance

Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) (https//www.cpars.gov).

3.4 Factor 4: Price

The Offeror shall complete the Responder Lodging Capsules Pricing Template. The Offeror shall propose the UNIT COST for each CLIN. The proposed COSTS shall be based on the requirements of the SOW.

Offerors shall complete the attached Excel price schedule and submit it in electronic

Excel format. The unit prices for each CLIN submitted in the price schedule will be utilized for evaluation and incorporated into the Award as price schedule, to be used for future task orders.

4.0 Rating Scales

4.1 Rating Scale for Technical Factors 1 & 2

The Government will assess the level of confidence that the offering contractor will successfully perform all requirements in regard to the maintenance, storage, and operational services needed.

The following table shows the ratings that will be used for Factors 1 and 2:

Rating Description

High Confidence The Government has high confidence that the

Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract with little or no Government intervention.

Some Confidence The Government has some confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract with some Government intervention.

Low Confidence The Government has low confidence that the

Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract even with Government intervention.

4.2 Rating Scale for Technical Factor 3 – Past Performance

The Government will assess the level of confidence that the offering contractor will successfully perform all requirements in regard to the past performance presented.

The following table shows the ratings that will be used for Factor 3:

Rating Description

High Confidence The Government has high confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract with little or no

Government intervention.

Some Confidence The Government has some confidence that the

Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract with some Government intervention.

Low Confidence The Government has low confidence that the

Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract even with Government intervention.

Neutral An offeror without relevant past performance, or for whom information on past performance is not available, will be given a neutral rating.

APPENDIX C

Past Performance Questionnaire

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

SUBJECT: Offeror Past Performance Assessment in Support of Request for Proposal (RFP)

Number: 70FB5020P????

Dear Sir/Ma’am;

The Department of Homeland Security is currently conducting a competitive source selection to evaluate offerors on subject RFP. As part of this evaluation, we have requested that the offerors provide information about their past performance on same or similar federal, state or local government or commercial contracts as compared to North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 561210 Facilities Support Services. You have been identified as the point of contact cited on the enclosure.

Your assessment of their performance is extremely valuable to our evaluation. Please complete the enclosure and return to the Contracting Officer shown below, no later than proposal due date and time. Your questionnaire may be submitted electronically to the Contracting Officer at Sherwin.Turner@fema.dhs.gov.

Your cooperation is greatly appreciated. Questions may be directed to the undersigned at

Sherwin.Turner@fema.dhs.gov.

Sincerely, // signed // Sherwin Turner

Contracting Officer mailto:Sherwin.Turner@fema.dhs.gov mailto:Sherwin.Turner@fema.dhs.gov

PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE FORM

Contractor: __________________________ Contract No.:____________________________

Subcontract No. (if applicable): _________________________________

POC: _______________________________ Title: _________________________________

(Agency, Telephone No., E-mail Address & Fax Number)

The following questions pertain to the contractor’s record of past (within the past three years) and current performance. The information that you provide will be used in the awarding of a federal contract. Therefore, it is important that our information be as factual and accurate as possible. Please provide examples and/or explanations (use additional pages if necessary). The following adjectival ratings shall be used in your response.

Outstanding: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many requirements that benefit the end user. Work was accomplished with few, if any, minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Good: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some requirements that benefit the end user. Work was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Acceptable: Performance meets contractual requirements. Work was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were satisfactory.

Marginal: Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. Serious problems with contractor performance were experienced for which the contractor has either not yet identified corrective actions or the corrective actions taken appear only marginally effective.

Unacceptable: Performance does not meet most contractual requirements. Serious problems with contractor performance were experienced for which the corrective actions were ineffective.

PART I. (To be completed by the Offeror)

A. CONTRACT IDENTIFICATION

Contractor/Company Name/Division:

Address:

Program Identification/Title:

Contract Number/Identification Number:

Contract Type:

Prime Contractor Name (if different from contractor sited above):

Contract Award Date:

Forecasted or Actual Contract Completion Date:

Nature of Contractual Effort / Items Purchased:

B. INDENTIFICATION OF OFFEROR’S REPRESENTATIVE

Name:

Title:

Date:

Telephone Number:

E-mail Address:

PART II. EVALUATION (To be completed by Point of Contact – Respondent)

A. COMPLIANCE OF PRODUCTS, SERVICES, DOCUMENTS, AND RELATED

DELIVERABLES TO SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS

OF GOOD WORKMANSHIP

Outstanding (explanation must be provided in comments field below)

Good

Acceptable

Marginal (explanation must be provided in comments field below)

Unsatisfactory (explanation must be provided in comments field below)

Comments:

B. EFFECTIVENESS OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT (to include use and control of subcontractors)

Acceptable

Marginal (explanation must be provided in comments field below)

C. TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE FOR SERVICES AND PRODUCT

DELIVERABLES

Acceptable

Marginal (explanation must be provided in comments field below)

D. COMMITMENT TO CUSTOMER SATISFACTION AND BUSINESS-LIKE

CONCERN FOR ITS CUSTOMERS’ INTEREST

Acceptable

Marginal (explanation must be provided in comments field below)

E. GENERAL COMMENTS. PROVIDE ANY OTHER RELEVANT

PERFORMANCE INFORMATION:

F. OTHER INFORMATION SOURCES. PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING

INFORMAITON:

Are you aware of other relevant past efforts by this company? (if yes, please provide the name and telephone number of a point of contact).

G. RESPONDENT IDENTIFICATION. PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING

INFORMATION:

Organization:

Name:

Title:

Date:

Telephone Number:

E-mail Address:

PART III. RETURN INFORMAITON

Please return this completed Questionnaire via e-mail to the Contracting Officer not later than the proposal due date and time, also identified in the cover letter (Sherwin.Turner

@fema.dhs.gov).

//signed//

Sherwin Turner mailto:daisy.joseph@fema.dhs.gov mailto:daisy.joseph@fema.dhs.gov